Committee Members React After Impeachment Vote | NBC News (Live Stream Recording)

Channel: NBC News
Published: 12/13/2019 03:36 PM

Watch live coverage as members of the House Judiciary Committee approve articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. » Subscribe to NBC News: » Watch more NBC video: NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful...

[ music, ] [ music ]. Thank you. Judiciary committee will come to order a quorum being present. Having agreed yesterday to the amendment and the nature of a substitute and articles of impeachment against president donald j trump, the pending business is reporting the resolution favorably to the house, reporting quorum being present. The question is now on the motion to report the resolution. H. Re ...
755. As amended favorably to the house pursuant to clause 5 of house rule 16, because the resolution contains two distinct propositions, we will divide the question between the two articles. The question now is on article 1 of the resolution impeaching president donald j trump for abusing his powers. The clerk will call the roll mr. nadleraye mr. nadler votes.

I miss lofgren hi miss lofgren votes. I miss jackson lee i miss jackson, lee votes aye, mr. cohen; ah mr. cohen votes aye mr. johnson of georgia, aye mr. johnson of georgia votes aye mr. joyce aye. Mr. deutsche votes aye miss bass. I miss bass, votes aye, mr. richmond; yes, mr. richmond votes; yes, mr.

jeffries aye, mr. jeffries votes, aye mr. cicilline aye, mr. cicilline votes, aye mr. suavo, all right. Mr. suavo votes aye mr. liu, mr. raskin hi mr. raskin votes aye. Mr. hall, i miss jayapal vets.

I miss deming special report. The vote for the articles of impeachment here is lester holt good morning, everyone after 14 hours ofmarathon of debate yesterday, the house judiciary committee has reconvened and is about to vote now on the articles of impeachment. Against president donald trump, two articles being considered number one, article 1, that president trump abuses power by soliciting the interference of a foreign government, ukraine in the 2020 election for his personal political benefit, pressuring that government to do withholding military aid. An article to that. The president obstructed congress but refusing to cooperate with the investigation with this vote likely along partisan lines. The committee takes the next big step on the road this country has seldom traveled before the vote on article 1 is already under way. Let'S take you into the hearing room now: isthe bonus disc, although it is no mr. gohmert votes, no mr. jordan. No mr. jordan votes no mr. buck.

No mr. bump votes, no mr. radcliffe mr. radcliffe votes, no mr. robie mr. robie votes, no mr. gates; no mr. gates votes, no mr. johnson of louisiana. No mr. johnson of louisiana votes, no mr. biggs! No mr.

baek's votes, no mr. mclintock, no mr. mclintock votes! No! Mr. schoo no miss lesko votes; no mr. russian thor. No mr. rosenthal our votes, no mr. klein, no mr. klein votes. No mr. armstrong, oh mr. armstrong votes! No mr.

zubi, mr stupi votes no has every member voted. Who wishes to vote? Mr. chairman, may i ask how i'mrecorded how was the gentleman recorded mr. gohmert, you recorded us now now. I want to make sure the clerk will report. Mr. chairman, there are 23 eyes and 17 nose. The article is agreed to the question. Now is an article 2 of the resolution impeaching president donald j trump for obstructing congress. The clerk will call the roll mr. nadler aye mr. nadler votes, aye miss lofgren.

I miss lofgren votes, aye, miss jackson, lee oh, i miss jackson, lee votes aye, mr. cohen. Ah mr. cohen votes aye mr. johnson of georgia, aye mr. johnson of georgia votes aye mr. deutsch aye mr. deutsch votes. I miss bass. I miss bass, votes aye, mr. richmond; yes, mr. richmond votes; yes, mr.

jeffries aye, mr. jeffries votes, aye mr. cicilline aye mr. cicilline votes. Aye, mr. suave, ah ah mr. suave all votes aye mr. liu, mr. raskin hi mr. raskin votes. I miss jaya paul. I miss jaya, paul votes, i miss demmings.

I miss demings votes aye mr. cariah. Yes, mr. correa votes, yes, miss scanlon! I miss scanlon boots. I miss garcia. I miss garcia votes aye mr. niggas aye. Mr. new goose boots. I miss macbeth. I miss macbeth votes aye mr. stanton aye mr.

stanton votes. I miss teen. I miss teen votes. I miss mccardle powell. I miss ben carson powell votes. I miss escobar. I miss escobar's votes aye mr. collinsno mr. collins votes; no mr. sensenbrenner, oh mr. sensenbrenner votes, no mr. chabot mr.

chabot votes; no mr. gohmert; no mr. gohmert votes! No mr. jordan. Mr. jordan votes no mr. buck. Mr. buck votes; no mr. radcliffe mr. radcliffe votes! No! Mr. robie mr.

robie votes, no mr. gates, no mr. gates votes, no mr. johnson of louisiana, no mr. johnson of louisiana votes, no mr. baek's, no mr. baek's votes, no mr. mclintock! No mr. mclintock votes! No mr. schoo, no miss lesko votes. No! Mr. russians are no.

Mr. russian thought our votes, no mr. klein, no mr. klein votes. No mr. armstrong. Mr. armstrong votes, no mr. stu be mr. steuby votes. No is thereevery. Member of the committee who wishes to vote voted the clerk will report.

Mr. chairman, there are 23 eyes and 17 nose. The article is agreed to the resolution. As amended is ordered, reported favorably to the house, members will have two days to submit views. The resolution will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. That objection is to the chairman pursuant my purpose. Does the gentleman seek recognition for santa clause to l overall 11? I give notice of intent to file dissenting these notices heard without objection. The committee is adjourned and, after that long long day and night, today'sproceeding rather quick. The vote on both articles of impeachment approved on a 23-17 vote along partisan lines as we suspected. This is only another step that brings the president to the brink of history. Let'S go right now to jeff bennett on capitol hill, jeff walk us through what's happened, and what happens next? Hey lester! Well, as you mentioned, this was the outcome.

We expected a party-line vote in this case. It was 23 to 17. Normally in this committee it would be 24 to 17, but democratic congressman ted lieu is at home recovering from a medical procedure. So from here the drama moves to the house floor. You have the full house set to vote onthese articles of impeachment that had been approved. Now by this committee next week, here's what we expect according to a democratic source familiar on tuesday, we're told that the house will vote on the spending deal that keeps the government funded. It keeps government agencies fully funded and government workers paid on wednesday. They will vote on impeachment after a lengthy floor debate and then on thursday they'll vote on that trade deal u. s. mca and the scheduling of that we're told is intentional democrats intend to show the country that, even as they hold president trump to account, they still have The capacity to govern now house, speaker nancy pelosi, has made clear that she's, not pressuring herdemocratic members to vote in support of impeachment. She says this is one of those issues on which they have to vote their conscience, but democratic leaders tell us that they have the votes they need to prevail, which would then tee up a senate trial in early 2020. Lester walk me through again so wednesday.

They will debate and vote on the articles of impeachment. Will that be a long, drawn-out affair, as we saw last night or something more focused, something decidedly more focused you'll, see hours of debate and then a vote sometime in the early afternoon, perhaps or late afternoon early evening. But it should not take the 14 or 15 hours that we saw inthis committee with their debate yesterday. Lester all right, let's go to chuck todd right now, is in our washington, newsroom chuck this. This vote could have been held yesterday before all that debate and the outcome would have been the same. What was the point of what we saw last night? Well, look. I think that the real point is is that is that that's how the process is supposed to work? I think what the republicans successfully did is they they gum things up. I think they have made the focus the process rather than the allegations. I think politically. They have fought this the fact that it is a unified republican vote there that was no giventhree weeks ago. That was no given with the intel committee three or four weeks ago. Whatever hopes that some democrats in the leadership in the house had that that perhaps beyond justin amash there's no longer actually a member of the republican party, but the one non democrat in the house who supports impeachment, you know they thought, is there a possibility in the Republicans whole goal over this last month politically was to unite that party and they've successfully done it.

You'Ve got now this partisan result, which is exactly what the white house wanted. They needed a partisan result, the more partisan it looks, the more political it looks, the more political it looks, a lot easierit will be and to get those senate's the the senate to end up essentially speeding through this trial. It does look to me as if, frankly, both nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell are trying to speed through speed up and try to hit a brick wall fast, get this over with and get beyond the real question to me. Lester now, and as i think where this debate is going to move forward, is, if there's going to be a big debate on trying to win the aftermath of impeachment, where do we go after this process is over all right look bring in quickly carol, lamar, nbc News legal analyst: we keep talking about a trial as welook ahead. Two steps forward, not a criminal trial, the chief justice presiding. Do we have any idea of what it looks like that is anything familiar to a criminal procedure. We don't have a lot in common with a criminal procedure except for basic common sense rules that govern criminal criminal trials and will govern impeachment trials. To some extent, we've already seen a departure in the sense that mitch mcconnell has come out and said that the republicans in the senate are working very closely with the white house in terms of how to conduct this impeachment trial. Already an unusual departure from what we usually understand to be rules in this kind of hearing where, where thesenators are really supposed to be impartial, jurors, but now they're saying we're going to be working with the defense on how to present this trial. So the rules of evidence will be different. There will likely be more permissible rules of evidence, because this is not a criminal trial governed by the federal rules of evidence. All right, hallie jackson, our chief white house, correspondent, is with us as well.

There'S been a lot of wrangling about from the white house about how to defend the president, the president had his wishes. He got some of it and some of what we heard yesterday do we know how that will play out on the trial. In the sense thathe saw his republican allies in the judiciary committee vigorously defending him. He loved to see that he's been tweeting about that all morning. Long talking about gop unity, which, by the way, you may not see total unity on the democratic side when it comes to this house, vote that'll set this set to happen next week with some democrats, potentially a very small handful expected to potentially defect, although that's still Up in the air, as for the senate trial, we do know a little bit about what that's gon na look like. I spoke with a source over at the white house this morning. Who is telling me that pat's apollonia, the white house counsel, is likely goingto, be the person presenting the president's case that final decision has not been made, as our team has been reporting on the house side, you will see democratic lawmakers high-profile lawmakers familiar to our viewers Through this process, who will be presenting the democrats case, all right, hallie thanks very much, let me quickly go to andrew mitchell, our chief foreign affairs correspondent, andrea, as we noted we're standing at the doorstep of history. It'S been said by some on the left that the president has a essentially impeached himself. Does that hold water? Well, we'll see whether that holds water with the american people. What they're arguing is that the the call to zielinski and, of course, thefollow-up comments by mick mulvaney? Basically laid out the case for what happened, for what they claim is an abuse of power following up as well on whether or not this could ever be bipartisan, not just along partisan lines. The republicans have some hope of even expanding that handful of democrats trying to get some of those democrats who are at a very and very you know, closely fought some of the freshmen from previously red districts to try to turn over. I'M not sure they will from those conversations that i have had with them all right, andrea mitchell.

Thanks very much. Let'S walk you through again what has happened? The house judiciary committee has approved the twoarticles of impeachment abuse of power and obstruction of congress to vote on party lines as expected. The next step is this goes to the full house of representatives they'll. Take that up on wednesday with a debate and then a vote on impeachment on the articles of impeachment themselves. Well, of course, we covering this throughout the day on msnbc i'll, have a full wrap up for you on nbc, nightly news for now, i'm lester holt nbc news new york a day. You you, yes, let me let me let me address this as we did yesterday. You have to understand that the the trump administration has cooperated okay, just this year. They understand. Congress is oversight, andinvestigation responsibilities and they've acknowledged it 25 members of the administration have testified before oversight 20 have testified before the judiciary committee, where the impeachment proceeding began over a hundred thousand pages were submitted by the white house to congress. Pursuant to our request, and of course, he immediately released the transcript, the famous transcript of the phone call, the president has not been obstructing this at all. What he's worried about is the process. Is this unprecedented charade? That'S gone on adam schiff, controlling this in a basement.

Having secret hearings, cherry-picking witnesses denying republican questions not allowing republican witnesses to come forward, there's been no chance for the president's counsel to participate in the early stages of thisthis. Whole thing was rigged. I'M an attorney. Many of us are if we were advising our client, and our client in this case happen to be donald trump. We would tell him not to participate in that because it's an ambush. We got ambushed last night on the scheduling at every stage of this. The democrats have tried to railroad the president and that's why he's had some concern? The fact that they brought an impeachment claim of obstruction is absurd. The obama administration, the one just prior to this one, had went to court. They didn't turn in pleadings in in to all the documents and witnesses that were requested in the fast and furious investigation. They wentto the third branch of government. That'S the way our system is set up when there is a natural impasse that develops between the legislative and executive branches. We have the third branch of government, the judiciary.

They could have easily gone a few blocks away to a federal court, gotten an order to compel the the production of anything else they needed, but they didn't have time to do that. You know why we all know why, because they guaranteed to their radical left base that they would impeach donald trump by christmas. That'S why we're here! That'S why we've done all this and that's why they didn't go through the normal process, the custom and practice of everyprevious administration in the modern era. At the end of the day, the democrats control the house of representatives. They can determine what the process is. You guys might not like it. There are politics in this. There were politics in 1999 with president clinton, and we hear what you're saying that that said: don't they have the right to handle this in the fashion. I don't have the right to abuse the process, and this was a total abusive process. It was a witch-hunt, that's why they could not settle on a charge until they had exhausted that there was no evidence of a crime, and let me just tell you if the doj and the fbi went afteryou and your family and your business associates harassed them, and You find out, as the president did early on this was all a scam to bring him down. Then you would be wise and i bet most in the attorney would say: don't you go and give they're looking for anything, don't help them crucify you. It would not be smart.

The president did the right thing. The obstruction of justice was right here. Well, of course, also doj fbi, but hopefully there'll be people pay for that not likely to bring forward witnesses in the senate trial that they abolish does call for witnesses. How do you think that you're actually going to get your story out thisis, not what the senate promised that for months now, they would have witnesses and i really understand the desire. This was a ridiculous process, a report no real witnesses here, so i understand their their desire to just get it behind us, but the country needs to hear what a farce this was. They really need to bring in witnesses there the chance to clean this mess up and i sure hope they would. This is a president who, just yesterday called a teenager on the autism spectrum, a person with an anger-management problem. Does that make it harder to defend him? This vigorously it, the president, communicates in a unique way. He doesn't communicate the way i doand the way many of us would but six wait a minute wait a minute. Let me answer: 63 million americans voted to make him the president united states. He has an unorthodox style, but what we're talking about in here is removing a president, because the democrats - don't like that style, they don't like him. They don't like his twitter account.

They don't like many of his staff members. They don't like what he does in the office, but that the way our system is designed, the way our constitution is written is the party in charge. Even if you have the majority in congress, you don't get to remove a president, because you don't like them. They didnot produce a scintilla of evidence to support a charge of impeachment, and that is the question at the end of the day. That'S why we're so frustrated we may not have a trial miss in it. The president may not get a chance to put on his witnesses and put on his defense, but we're gon na do it to our constituents and the american people every opportunity we have - and i don't know i think, that's about it - for american president asked for power To investigate a political rival, why do you think that's okay? That was because i think, logically, more likely than the democrat story is because he wanted to vet out the corruption he had seenthe video of joe biden bragging about how he was going to withhold 1 billion dollars from ukraine if they didn't fire the prosecutor, the same Prosecutor that had been investigating ber yzma, the corrupt company, where his son was getting paid to be on the board. That'S corruption that had corruption, plain and simple, according to an obama administration person and a similar case. Who said that is corruption, plain and simple? And i think it's the responsibility of the president of the united states before he hands over taxpayer dollars to investigate corruption, and i believe part of that corruption was with the biden's. You.

Watch Next